Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for more photos on planet.g.o

2007-07-12 Thread Peter Weller
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:11:57 +0200
Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi everyone,

[..snip..]

 People with hackergotchis
 - welp

[..snip..]

That reminds me, I got 10 inches worth of hair chopped off on Monday,
so my hackergotchi needs updating ;)
I'll take another headshot of myself and email it to you :P


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Steve Long
Greg KH wrote:
 The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
 case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
 Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)

Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.

 So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
 licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
 
I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at the
moment, we effectively have no choice.

Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
scratch?

(NB this is the ebuild, not the software packaged.)


-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
 Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
 scratch?

The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
scratch since it will require certain components, which we feel require
you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.  Basically, if it's an
ebuild and not something else (spec/pkginfo/control) then it is based
off the one skeleton ebuild which is father to them all, skel.ebuild...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:24:25 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
  Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
  wrote from scratch?
 
 The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
 scratch since it will require certain components, which we feel
 require you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.

Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.


-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages needing new maintainers

2007-07-12 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:16:09PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
  For various reasons, I've got a couple of packages that I'm not really
  very well suited to maintain going on. I added them over the course of past
  jobs and university courses, but I have no further need of them, and they
  really could use people that actually use them.
 for any of the sys-* ones, you probably already have base-system listed, but 
 just in case, you can add it as the herd ...
Some of them don't list base-system, because they were fringe enough
already. I'll add them to base-system if I don't find anybody else more
interested.

  Hardware, for tuning network cards. In new enough kernels (should be most
  of 2.6), this is obsoleted by mii-tools and ethtool:
  sys-apps/nictools
 i think we should scrub mii-tools, ethtool, and nictools ... latest net-tools 
 should provide all of these i believe
How is net-tools for those arches still on 2.4 kernels?
net-tools does not contain ethtool (which is badly out of date upstream,
the Git has moved a long way since they last did a release).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer  Council Member
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgp8NTYcn0oqd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
 Greg KH wrote:
  The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
  case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
  Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
 
 Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.
 
  So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
  licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
  
 I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
 including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at the
 moment, we effectively have no choice.

That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought
up about the whole tivo issue and the Linux kernel.

Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the
DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel).

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
   Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
   wrote from scratch?
 
  The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
  scratch since it will require certain components, which we feel
  require you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.

 Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
 familiarity with ebuilds.

perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant

either Gentoo goes GPL-3 or not at all ... having ebuilds with mixed licenses 
is doomed to failure

unless there is a pressing need for Gentoo to go GPL-3 (and i dont think 
anyone has stated any where it'd matter to Gentoo), there isnt much point 
right now i dont think
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:00:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
  familiarity with ebuilds.
 
 perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant

Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
*them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
the Foundation somehow claims that all ebuilds, even those
from-scratch, are derived works?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Seemant Kulleen
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

 Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
 from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
 *them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
 the Foundation somehow claims that all ebuilds, even those
 from-scratch, are derived works?

What's the case here?  Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
tree via bugzilla and other means?  Or third-party ebuilds from joe
shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?

The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.   The first case needs to be
considered.  The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require*
contributors to license ebuilds as GPL-2?  And if that is the case,
that's what stops them.

It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone wrote
a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and without
basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree, no?


Thanks,

Seemant



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 What's the case here?  Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
 tree via bugzilla and other means?  Or third-party ebuilds from joe
 shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
 
 The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.   The first case needs to be
 considered.  The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require*
 contributors to license ebuilds as GPL-2?  And if that is the case,
 that's what stops them.

Right. The second case is already covered by Gentoo policy.

 It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
 wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
 and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
 tree, no?

It'd be interesting to try to prove that they *did* copy it too... For
a sufficiently trivial ebuild, it's entirely possible for a third party
to come up with something that's very close to the in-tree ebuild, even
if they did write it from scratch...

Didn't someone (Seemant? I forget) have to 'provably' rewrite a few
ebuilds that were in the tree a while ago? Wasn't there some issue with
the copyright on ebuilds written by a former developer being something
like Copyright blah Gentoo and dude's_nick?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Wulf C. Krueger
On Thursday, 12. July 2007 21:14:38 Seemant Kulleen wrote:
 It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
 wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and
 without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree,
 no?

How many angels can dance on the head of a needle? [1]

Seriously, guys... 

*Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
*Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?

Best regards, Wulf

[1] The definitive answer, btw, was found by Professor Raoul Mortley: The 
answer is of course well known; fewer if fat, more if thin.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:14 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
 On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 
  Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
  from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
  *them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
  the Foundation somehow claims that all ebuilds, even those
  from-scratch, are derived works?
 
 What's the case here?  Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
 tree via bugzilla and other means?  Or third-party ebuilds from joe
 shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
 
 The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.   The first case needs to be
 considered.  The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require*
 contributors to license ebuilds as GPL-2?  And if that is the case,
 that's what stops them.
 
 It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone wrote
 a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and without
 basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree, no?

How likely is this?

Let me put it another way.  I write ebuilds all the time.  I don't need
to look at the documentation or any other ebuilds to write a new one.
However, any ebuild I write is a derived work of previous ebuilds.  Why?
Because I used skel.ebuild and other ebuilds already in the tree as the
basis for the ebuilds I originally wrote.  Because I no longer need to
actually *look* at other ebuilds doesn't change that my entire knowledge
base for ebuild writing is derived from other ebuilds, which were based
on other ebuilds before them.  Also, I would find it very difficult, if
not impossible, to write an ebuild that is even slightly complex without
using the eclasses, at all.  Sure, it is *possible* that someone is
capable of writing an ebuild entirely from scratch, but the likelihood
is pretty much nonexistent.

We could just end this really quickly and require all ebuilds submitted
be done under GPLv2.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:48:05 +0200
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Seriously, guys... 
 
 *Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
 *Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?

There are third party repositories out there with from-scratch ebuilds
that, at the very least, don't use Gentoo copyright. So if the
Foundation is claiming that all ebuilds are derived from skel.ebuild as
wolf31o2 implies, this is most definitely an issue.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
   familiarity with ebuilds.
 
  perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant

 Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
 from-scratch ebuilds...

why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party repositories ... 
this is just pointless pondering
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:58:49 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
  wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
  and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
  tree, no?
 
 How likely is this?

I know for a fact that people have already done it and are
redistributing works created that way without a Foundation copyright or
any Based upon blah, which is copyright Gentoo blah notice. I'm not
aware of any non-GPL-2 ebuilds being distributed, but if it is claimed
that all ebuilds are derived works of skel.ebuild then there's still a
copyright issue here.

 Let me put it another way.  I write ebuilds all the time.  I don't
 need to look at the documentation or any other ebuilds to write a new
 one. However, any ebuild I write is a derived work of previous
 ebuilds.  Why? Because I used skel.ebuild and other ebuilds already
 in the tree as the basis for the ebuilds I originally wrote.  Because
 I no longer need to actually *look* at other ebuilds doesn't change
 that my entire knowledge base for ebuild writing is derived from
 other ebuilds, which were based on other ebuilds before them. 

Getting an idea or knowledge from somewhere doesn't subject something
to copyright or licence requirements. There may be patent and
non-disclosure issues, but neither are applicable here.

 Also, I would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to write an
 ebuild that is even slightly complex without using the eclasses, at
 all. Sure, it is *possible* that someone is capable of writing an
 ebuild entirely from scratch, but the likelihood is pretty much
 nonexistent.

As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
ebuild because there's no linkage involved.

 We could just end this really quickly and require all ebuilds
 submitted be done under GPLv2.

Sure, but what about third party ebuilds? Claiming that all ebuilds are
derived work of a Gentoo-copyrighted ebuild effectively requires all
ebuilds that don't have Gentoo copyright to include a statement like:

# Based upon skel.ebuild, which is Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation

There are quite a few things out there that do not currently comply with
this requirement. If the Foundation truly believes that all ebuilds are
derived works, they should issue some kind of statement saying so.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Petteri Räty
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
 
 As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
 ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
 

This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries in !GPL-2 licenses so I don't think it goes that way but I am
no lawyer as said before.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.
  
   perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
 
  Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
  from-scratch ebuilds...
 
 why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party
 repositories ... this is just pointless pondering

Because if they're derived works from skel.ebuild as wolf31o2 is
claiming, then there are both copyright and licence requirements imposed
upon them. If this is the case, there are people out there in
violation, some of whom would likely take extremely strong issue with
the derived works argument...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Doty
All-

We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate in
 bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
 there is no requirement to be on this new list.

This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway)
but that's a path to cross later.

We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
the time.

--taco
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Bryan Østergaard

On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

All-

We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate in
 bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
 there is no requirement to be on this new list.

This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway)
but that's a path to cross later.

We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
the time.


Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes
through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
anything more.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Olivier Crête
On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.

What are the proposed guidelines for the different between -project and
-dev? What goes where?

-- 
Olivier Crête
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Jim Ramsay
Mike Doty wrote:
 devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
 themselves.

Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:16:46PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
 Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
  
  As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
  ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
  
 
 This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
 libraries in !GPL-2 licenses

Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
somewhat different but similar example, cdrtools.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Doty
Jim Ramsay wrote:
 Mike Doty wrote:
 devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
 themselves.
 
 Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
 
no.  it will probably be devrel who decides if someone was moderating
inappropriately.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
 would be the time.

Seems to me that this proposal doesn't solve any problem or address any
issue, and is merely a knee-jerk well we have to do something that's
being implemented merely because some people would like to be seen as
doing something...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Josh Sled
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the

What's the definition of bad?

-- 
...jsled
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpLc7ZZONXht.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Dale
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
 On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 All-

 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
 where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who
 moderate in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently
 becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.

 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked
 out anyway)
 but that's a path to cross later.

 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
 would be
 the time.

 Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes
 through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
 citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
 anything more.

 Regards,
 Bryan Østergaard

And this lowly user will unsubscribe as well.  What's the point in
getting the emails if you are censored?  I thought the proctors were
supposed to keep this list on topic?

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Josh Saddler
Jim Ramsay wrote:
 Mike Doty wrote:
 devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
 themselves.
 
 Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
 
See the council meeting logs when they're posted. Having just watched
the meeting live, I saw that the proctors project was just ended.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400

 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
   Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
 familiarity with ebuilds.
   
perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
  
   Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
   from-scratch ebuilds...
 
  why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party
  repositories ... this is just pointless pondering

 Because if they're derived works from skel.ebuild as wolf31o2 is
 claiming, then there are both copyright and licence requirements imposed
 upon them. If this is the case, there are people out there in
 violation, some of whom would likely take extremely strong issue with
 the derived works argument...

blah blah blah it's a stupid argument

third parties are free to license however they like.  anything in the Gentoo 
portage tree has to have a header the same as skel.ebuild.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Thomas Tuttle
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:31:31 +0200, Bryan Østergaard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where 
  only
  devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who 
  moderate in
   bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the

Why?  Is it getting too much junk traffic?

  gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently 
  becomes.
   there is no requirement to be on this new list.

Fine, but I don't understand why -dev would then have to be moderated. 
If -dev is for core Gentoo stuff, and -project is for more specific
stuff or offshoots, why should one be moderated and the other not?

  This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out 
  anyway)
  but that's a path to cross later.

How do you figure?  If -dev takes on everything from -core, then the
only purpose I can see for moderation is to squelch the opinions of
non-devs when controversial issues are discussed.  I can understand
moderation if non-devs are getting in the way (although I don't see any
evidence of that), but that would have nothing to do with -core.

  We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
  the time.

I don't officially have input, but I think this is a bad idea, or should
at least be presented along with some reasoning.  -dev is the way a lot
of people learn about Gentoo development, and it would be unfair to
force people including devs-to-be to wait for someone to approve their
posts.

 Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes
 through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
 citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
 anything more.

He's got a point.  And, as an arch tester, I'm going to be annoyed if
one day I need to ask something here and my post is delayed or lost
because I'm not a dev.
-- 
Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 third parties are free to license however they like.

Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Tiziano Müller
Mike Doty schrieb:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.

Hmm, interesting. Should We're going to change... be interpreted as a
fact and the voting itself is only a formal thing?
Because if that's the case, we can close -dev completely and just keep
-announcement and admire the decisions made by some people.

 
 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out 
 anyway)
 but that's a path to cross later.
 
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.

Let's go for censorship! Let's vote for gagging those users who don't
have any idea of development and those ex-devs who think they still have
anything to say.

And to give that comment a technical side:
- Do you think that any dev will regularly check for messages written by
users he barely knows and give his ok? Risking being moderated himself
if somebody else with magic foo thinks that the post was inappropriate?
- Who decides/defines when a post is a bad post?
- What if one dev thinks a post is inappropriate and rejects it, can
another dev still let it through?
- Why not just make -core o+r if you think that it gets leaked out
anyway and leave -dev as it is?
- When do we start with the moderation of -project?

Cheers.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Thomas Tuttle
Oh, a couple more questions.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
 only
 devs can post

What about arch testers?

 but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.

This is bad, for two reasons.

1. It doesn't put responsibility for moderating messages in a timely
fashion on anyone.  Devs will want to hack, not moderate, and I worry
that messages would get ignored.
2. It doesn't set a clear standard for what is acceptable or not.  Some
devs might moderate in questions/suggestions from non-devs willingly,
while others might decide that they're getting in the way and moderate
them out.

 devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.

What about devs who moderate *out good* posts?  Do you have a way to
make sure devs aren't trashing messages that others might find useful? 
I could see situations where a user or dev-to-be makes a suggestion or
comment that is badly written, or not feasible in the dev's mind, or
wrong to them in some other way, and the dev trashes it, figuring it's
irrelevant to everyone.

 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently
 becomes.

Is there an official definition of the split between the two?  Is -dev
basically going to be core Gentoo devs collaborating on internal things
that require coordination, and -project going to be where various
projects get implemented?

 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out
 anyway) but that's a path to cross later.

I'd cross it sooner, rather than later, because without moving -core's
traffic to -dev, it will look like you're just excluding non-devs for no
reason.  If -dev becomes a place where devs truly need an uninterrupted
place to discuss things, then you could fairly say that the devs need
the moderation to work efficiently.

Thanks again,

Thomas Tuttle
-- 
Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread expose
 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out
 anyway) but that's a path to cross later.
If it will remove the need for -core, why not move some future -dev content 
to -core, and make -dev the new list you called -project?

So, if you move discussions where non-devs arent supposed to speak 
unmoderatedly to -core, this should be an equally well solution, but it 
should create less noise (ie., people will less likely feel degraded etc).

Though I'm not an insider when it comes to -core, I'd guess there is few need 
for non-public discussions, except for security reasons or similar.

Anyway, I wouldnt name it -project but rather -public or -dev-open maybe.
I find -project confusing.

Besides all this:
How will moderation actually work? Whom to ask to moderate a mail?
Just mail a random dev, at best one having to do with the issue or the 
discussion, to his [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and ask to forward the post or how?
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  third parties are free to license however they like.

 Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
 wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
 skel.ebuild?

why dont you go make a query where it belongs: on the trustees list
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ned Ludd
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.

 
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.

This is an absolutely wonderful idea and I can't wait till we implement
it.

-- 
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Thomas Tuttle
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:55:15 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 How will moderation actually work? Whom to ask to moderate a mail?
 Just mail a random dev, at best one having to do with the issue or the 
 discussion, to his [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and ask to forward the post or
 how?

Most mailing list systems have a built-in provision for moderation.  The
devs who haven't been meta-moderated out (to use the Slashdot term)
would have access to it, and could approve or reject messages from
non-devs.  I guess.
-- 
Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Seemant Kulleen
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.
 
 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out 
 anyway)
 but that's a path to cross later.
 
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.
 
 --taco

My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
public, and leave -dev as it is?  That way we don't have to muck around
with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.

Thanks,

Seemant



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread expose
 Most mailing list systems have a built-in provision for moderation.  The
 devs who haven't been meta-moderated out (to use the Slashdot term)
 would have access to it, and could approve or reject messages from
 non-devs.  I guess.

Wouldnt this allow for the following:

Devs A, B, C are argueing against X, Y, Z who are of a different opinion.
I submit a mail supporting XYZ, as soon as (s)he can A picks it up, sorts it 
out/deletes it/rates it irrelevant/whatever, and noone every notices?
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Jeffrey Gardner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
 My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
 public, and leave -dev as it is?  That way we don't have to muck around
 with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.

^ ^ I agree with that idea ^ ^


- --
Jeffrey Gardner
Gentoo Developer
Public PGP Key ID: 4A5D8F23
hkp://pgpkeys.mit.edu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGlqUViR2KxEpdjyMRAt9IAKC10FzPh3X99PFIKSLHsm6Xcj8IZACgqUw9
JalEfd766hvLbpW+PhSszPM=
=c9u4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Denis Dupeyron

On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
public, and leave -dev as it is?  That way we don't have to muck around
with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.


That looks like a good idea to me if the mandatory communication
(package retirement announcements, USE flag discussions, etc...) is
moved to -core. If not, I don't see the point.

Also I still think we need a private mailing list. Whether it's used
often or not shouldn't be a metric for the decision. And if things get
leaked out as Mike says, then it's an entirely different issue that
deserves an entirely different type of resolution on a case by case
basis involving the source of the leak, not the list.

Denis.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Tom Wesley
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
snip
  Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
  citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
  anything more.

+1

This move would be shooting Gentoo in the foot, in my opinion.

 -- tomaw



pgp0UnZh8Lq3W.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Michael Krelin

Is this course of tightening all possible restrictions permanent now?

Love,
H

Mike Doty wrote:

All-

We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate in
 bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
 there is no requirement to be on this new list.

This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway)
but that's a path to cross later.

We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
the time.

--taco

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Krzysiek Pawlik
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
 My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
 public, and leave -dev as it is?  That way we don't have to muck around
 with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.

I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would the archives
of -core be opened too?

-- 
Krzysiek Pawlik   nelchael at gentoo.org   key id: 0xBC51
desktop-misc, desktop-dock, x86, java, apache, ppc...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:21:40 +0200
Krzysiek Pawlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would
 the archives of -core be opened too?

That's been discussed several times in the past. Agreement has always
been that any change to the public status of -core couldn't be applied
retroactively.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:43:57 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
  All-
  
  We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
  where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev
  post.  devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
  themselves.  in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to
  take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to
  be on this new list.
  
  This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked
  out anyway) but that's a path to cross later.
  
  We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
  would be the time.
  
  --taco
 
 My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
 public, and leave -dev as it is?  That way we don't have to muck
 around with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.

I have to agree, the idea sounds simply like you want to rename -core
to -dev and -dev to -project, with the moderation added to make it
appear somewhat open.

Marius

-- 
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Steve Long
Chris Gianelloni wrote:

 On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
 Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
 scratch?
 
 The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
 scratch since it will require certain components, which we feel require
 you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.  Basically, if it's an
 ebuild and not something else (spec/pkginfo/control) then it is based
 off the one skeleton ebuild which is father to them all, skel.ebuild...
 
I understand what you're getting at but when I first wanted to write an
ebuild so my kid could use synfig[1], I hadn't even looked at skel.ebuild
(lame, I know. I'd heard of it but wanted to do my own thing- I'm funny
like that.) I just based it all on the devmanual functions (since that was
linked from the forums) and to me that is akin to reading eg
http://wooledge.org/mywiki/BashGuide and then writing a script (although a
lot simpler.) I certainly wouldn't accept that it was based in any way on
skel.ebuild.

I have only just opened skel.ebuild for the first time while copying all the
portage/skel.* files to make an ebuild (thought I'd try it) for medit which
can be used by pida (altho it needs a new plugin for the new version.)
First time I've ever seen the comments from drobbins in the changelog as
well. TBH I got tired of all the comments in skel.ebuild since I am up to
speed with bash, and was just going to delete it all and start from
scratch. I thought I should post since my instinct is to put GPL3 on
anything I send out, that isn't work-related.

OFC you require all Gentoo ebuilds to be assigned to Gentoo-- that's fair
enough, I accept and support that. It just seems odd that we can't
contribute under GPL3 if we so choose. But yeah, all stuff in Gentoo is (C)
by the Foundation, and it's all available under GPL2 only. The Foundation
can aiui change that to any license it chooses, in the same way as the FSF
has changed the license for its copyrighted works to GPL3.

I agree with Mr McCreesh however, that it is perfectly possible to write an
ebuild without looking at skel.ebuild, as I have done it. The devmanual
gives enough information to do so. 

Please note, this is not some paranoia thing about assignment, nor is it a
crusade for GPL3. I am happy that I can use Gentoo, period.

BTW _Congratulations_ on the excellent write-up in linuxformat! They gave
the new release 9 out of 10. They seemed impressed both by the new
installer and the networkless install.
_ _
[1] These are the bugs for synfig: you'll see from ETL-20060929 that my
first ebuild really was simple :-) None of the ones I put in was based on
skel.ebuild.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111277 -- ETL
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111278 -- synfig
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111279 -- synfig-studio

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1 is
great as well, but I only found that link relatively recently (3 or 4
months ago in #-dev-help)

[sorry for length]


-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Markus Ullmann
Hey ;)

As an extension of it. What about this:

_All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are
moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated)
subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out,
can do that on -project?

Greetz
-Jokey



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Steve Long
Greg KH wrote:
  So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
  licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
  
 I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
 including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at
 the moment, we effectively have no choice.
 
 That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought
 up about the whole tivo issue and the Linux kernel.
 
 Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the
 DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel).
 
OK, but what about a corporation selling Gentoo-based tivo boxes? Updates
are carried out as, say, binary images, and they continue to use all the
flexibility of Gentoo (built by its users, and devs who are also users)
while curtailing Gentoo users' rights.

I understand the argument that eg GCC is a paintbox, and the FSF don't want
copyright over your paintings, but do want improvements to the toolset to
be shared by all. I /had/ thought 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From
Anti-Circumvention Law meant that GCC could not be used to build such a
system:
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure
under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the
WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws
Hmm got that wrong I guess, my bad. (I guess you can tell I ain't a
lawyer ;-))

I still don't like it :-) I also wonder how the above applies to BASH, which
is usually such a critical element of a GNU/Linux system.. I guess that's
what other shells, under less protective licenses, will be used for tho.

(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html for users who don't have the url.)


-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Chrissy Fullam
The -project mailing list ... is a required list for a dev to join.

Sorry, NOT a required list for devs to join.

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author



-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Chrissy Fullam
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 All-

 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to 
 where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  
 devs who moderate in  bad posts will be subject to moderation 
 themselves.  in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take
over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.

This was discussed in June's council meeting, then brought back up at
today's council meeting, and slotted for voting in next months meeting. I do
not think one could consider it a knee jerk reaction when there is so much
time between conception, discussion, and voting.

Having been active in those meetings maybe this will clarify it some for
others... this is what I derived of it:
The -core mailing list is for information too sensitive to be sent to the
public. Does this information stay confidential until it's appropriate
release time, no not always, but it is based on a sound principle so the
list stays.

The -dev mailing list would be the list for development discussion. The
reason it does not replace -core is because it would still be open to be
viewed by the public. 
Many devs have stated that they do not wish to read -dev presently due to
the quantity of off topic emails, or at least those that are not productive.
These devs would be able to continue to read -dev and reduce the volume of
email to wade through to only those pertinent to the topic at hand.
Non-devs would still subscribe and post, but those posts must first be
approved by ANY developer. The method of contact has not been
documented/discussed, one could presume IRC or email or even that one of the
hundreds of developers might be active at that moment and decide to release
that post. An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated would
be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no one booted
it, so the email rolls through)

The -project mailing list would be the place for the unmoderated and
potentially off topic correspondence. I don't think anyone is married to the
name. It also is a required list for a dev to join.

The moderation of -dev would be done by any developer who saw fit to release
the email sent from a non-dev.
The release of bad emails would be addressed by devrel. What makes an
email bad would be decided based on the principles of the Code of Conduct.
See http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ned Ludd
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.
 
 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out 
 anyway)
 but that's a path to cross later.
 
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.
 
 --taco

A lot of people seem to be confused about this mail of yours. Namely
mainly how it does or does not relate to the core mailing list. Perhaps
you could clarify the idea a little bit for those who seem confused. 

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-12 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 01:06 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
   I'd like to nominate Marien Zwarts (marienz) for the Council 2007/2008.

I would second that for sure. I received help form him in #gentoo years
before I ever became a dev. Also roger55 helped me out a few times :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[gentoo-dev] Single half-binary package seeking young single maintainer

2007-07-12 Thread Chris Gianelloni
Hi there,

This is the first time I've done this, so please bear with me.  I am a
half-binary, half-source package associated with net-misc in the tree.
I am a happy, fun-loving package.  I totally dig encryption and tunnels.
Most of you know me by net-misc/cisco-vpnclient-3des already.  Well, my
current maintainer doesn't have time for me anymore, so I've decided to
search for a new maintainer.  Don't worry, we're still remaining
friends, so there won't be any baby's momma drama or anything.  I'm
just looking to find someone to love me and help me keep my home in good
shape.  All serious applicants considered.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:31 +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:

 Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes
 through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
 citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
 anything more.

I think the idea is being taken the wrong way. Why would you think you
were second class?

I take it as internal stuff on -core. Gentoo developers working with
each other on -dev. Everyone who wants to work on the Gentoo Project,
devs and all can do it in -project. I don't see anything wrong with
levels of separation like that. Other than it being different.

It's not like all development takes place on the -dev ml. Nor will -dev
be private, so the public can still follow. If they need to interact.
There is still IRC, Bugzilla, -project, etc.

We don't let just anyone have a voice on #gentoo-dev or etc. What would
make the -dev ml any different? Which just like on IRC, voices could
still be granted to some past devs. If that goes against policy, then
that's just a downfall of no longer being a dev. But it might still be
possible to have former devs subscribed and able to post to -dev.

Either way very few in any position are allowed to retain all power,
privileges and etc after leaving the position. What ever it is. That's
not a elitist thing. That's just how things are. Doesn't make one better
than another, one first class or another second class.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Mike Doty wrote:
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
 only devs can post,

Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship
against terrorism.

I hate it when the rulers think they can impose such decisions upon the
people and do not see how they obviously impact their freedom.

If it is only against a single User who has done something bad, but against
all users in general, you are crazy ..

-Stefan

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Kelly

Mike Doty wrote:

We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate in
 bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
 there is no requirement to be on this new list.

This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway)
but that's a path to cross later.

We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
the time.


Here's my input: Hell no.

I might post something more detailed later, but that's the gist of it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Steve Long
Markus Ullmann wrote:

 Hey ;)
 
 As an extension of it. What about this:
 
 _All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are
 moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated)
 subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out,
 can do that on -project?
 
Sounds good. But your devs are not the people to moderate. Nor is devrel
based on what kloeri told me about it.

If you want users and devs in a forum which is moderated, then the
moderators *have* to have authority over _both_ and more importantly a
mandate. This has all been discussed before, it's what lead to the CoC
(which arguably wasn't needed) and the proctors (who definitely were and
still are.) *Face it guys*, you made a mistake in getting rid of them.

Running around trying to get more toys isn't going to change that, and all
you're doing now is wasting the last year's work on the non-technical
aspects of development, and potentially digging a much bigger, much nastier
hole.


-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:56:24PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
 Greg KH wrote:
   So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
   licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
   
  I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
  including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at
  the moment, we effectively have no choice.
  
  That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought
  up about the whole tivo issue and the Linux kernel.
  
  Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the
  DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel).
  
 OK, but what about a corporation selling Gentoo-based tivo boxes? Updates
 are carried out as, say, binary images, and they continue to use all the
 flexibility of Gentoo (built by its users, and devs who are also users)
 while curtailing Gentoo users' rights.

As you have control over the kernel, just replace it with something you
can use to circumvent the drm issue.  Quite simple to do, no GPLv3
issues involved at all :)

Remember, if you can replace the kernel, you 0wn the whole box full
stop.  That is why the v3 DRM issues really only affect the kernel, and
we (the linux kernel developers) were explicitly told this by the FSF to
our faces.

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:59 -0700
Chrissy Fullam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
 a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not
 moderated would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period
 expires and no one booted it, so the email rolls through)

For what it's worth, _IF_ this proposal goes through I'd strongly prefer
that mode of operation, so that moderation can't become a limiting
factor.

Marius

PS: Am I the only one who missed both reminders for the meeting?

-- 
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Steve Long
Luca Barbato wrote:

 Tiziano Müller wrote:
 Let's go for censorship! Let's vote for gagging those users who don't
 have any idea of development and those ex-devs who think they still have
 anything to say.
 
 Yawn...

Hmm.

 
 And to give that comment a technical side:
 - Do you think that any dev will regularly check for messages written by
 users he barely knows and give his ok? Risking being moderated himself
 if somebody else with magic foo thinks that the post was inappropriate?
 
 given I don't have much time I cannot tell if I'll be really able but I
 have _no_ problems in modding up emails.
 
So, you'd quite enjoy it, you just have no time to do so. Very useful to put
this on devs, who seem to be the ones who are always involved in flames (to
paraphrase a council member.)

 - Who decides/defines when a post is a bad post?
 
 the same people that did before?
 
What the ones you lot just sacked as soon as they actually tried to do their
job?

Or do you mean the devs who have time and inclination to pick on users? And
that has happened.. oh no, wait, you mean the hard-working devs who just
don't have time nor experience of moderation?

 - What if one dev thinks a post is inappropriate and rejects it, can
 another dev still let it through?
 
 why?
 
Hmm. Now you're showing just why you shouldn't be doing the job- you clearly
haven't thought any of the implications through. The question is: what sort
of appeal mechanism? Or will it be like irc, where you are loath to
interfere with each others' bad decisions? ``After all, they're only
lusers, and we is l337 h4x0rs.. hehehe''

 - Why not just make -core o+r if you think that it gets leaked out
 anyway and leave -dev as it is?
 
 core is good as is.
 
So how come `dev' trolls spill over from core to dev? Is your sandbox too
small or what? Oh that hasn't happened for a week or two, so all is good.
If core is so good, stay there imo, and talk on here when you actually want
to consult your external partners.

Why can't you just keep your private m-l and allow this list to serve its
purpose?

The list is intentionally not developer only. It is a place for the
interaction between developers and advanced users on what happens in
gentoo. It's not for flames ;-). Paul de Vrieze [1]

 - When do we start with the moderation of -project?
 
 -project, project's rules...
 
 
 lu - I don't give a damn
 
So kindly don't post. You don't care about it, and you haven't even thought
any of it thru to even one tenth of the standard of a forum mod.

/me votes for moderation of all devs on dev m-l and let em keep core. After
all, this is where you show the world just how well you represent your
distro. Why shouldn't you uphold standards?

steveL - i do give a damn, but i am completely disgusted at the nature of
this development. Rather than face the fact that you guys should have never
let the situation get so bad, and indeed should have supported your
proctors, you want to grab some more power? You need to be thinking about
how you have exercised the considerable latitude you already have. If you
think for one second that 300 part time devs (of whom 100 are active) can
additionally cover the work that your users have been doing, you are simply
delusional imo.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/37195 -- i suggest
you read that link and consider whether users really are the problem.


-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:55 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
 Mike Doty wrote:
  We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
  only devs can post,
 
 Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship
 against terrorism.

No, it is nothing like it.  Removing the right to speak, which is
granted solely and absolutely by Gentoo, is nothing like surveillance
and censorship on citizens of a country that explicitly allows free
speech.

 I hate it when the rulers think they can impose such decisions upon the
 people and do not see how they obviously impact their freedom.

What freedom are you talking about?  This is Gentoo, not some
fictional country.  The only rights people are given with regards to
Gentoo are the rights given to them by the licenses under which our
software is distributed and the rules under which we govern ourselves.
We have *no* rule *anywhere* guaranteeing freedom of speech to *anyone*
and shouldn't be compared to a country's laws which explicitly *does*
grant that right.  Remember that we do *not* grant free speech.  The
freedom to speak on official Gentoo media is a privilege, not a right,
and it is a privilege that can be revoked.

 If it is only against a single User who has done something bad, but against
 all users in general, you are crazy ..

Yes, because rules should never be enforced in a fair and equal manner
against everyone.  Instead, they should have special cases and be
enforced differently for each person.  Even better would be to allow the
rich or popular to completely circumvent any rules put in place.  That
makes so much more sense than writing out a simple set of rules or
guidelines and applying them unilaterally.  Call me crazy, but... oh
wait, you did.  Nevermind... ;]

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Jeffrey Gardner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
 On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:10 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
 On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
 public, and leave -dev as it is?  ...
 
 Understanding the simplification with the above approach.
 
 Also I still think we need a private mailing list.
 
 +1
 
 I personally agree there needs to be at least one private, non-public
 ml. So with that, I would not be for opening up -core.

Why not make -core o+r from this day forward and create gentoo-private
for the secret stuff?
This way we only need to be subscribed to two mailing lists: -core and
- -private

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGlrpXiR2KxEpdjyMRAubGAKCwtLt+durjoyXf308VguXCTCvUIwCgyZIu
QDEggzr0b8eSopi64bM0qqQ=
=/B0M
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Robert Buchholz

Am 13.07.2007 um 00:43 schrieb Chrissy Fullam:
The -dev mailing list would be the list for development discussion.  
The
reason it does not replace -core is because it would still be open  
to be

viewed by the public.
Many devs have stated that they do not wish to read -dev presently  
due to
the quantity of off topic emails, or at least those that are not  
productive.
These devs would be able to continue to read -dev and reduce the  
volume of

email to wade through to only those pertinent to the topic at hand.
Non-devs would still subscribe and post, but those posts must first be
approved by ANY developer.

...

The -project mailing list would be the place for the unmoderated and
potentially off topic correspondence. I don't think anyone is  
married to the

name. It also is a required list for a dev to join.


Isn't that two solutions for one problem?

Creating the -project list is a way to discuss off-topic non-technical
stuff on a place other than -dev. Why would we need to enforce  
moderation

on the -dev list along with that?

I have to second the voices that a lot of user mails are productive.  
I did
not do any stats, but I feel that most mails to -dev are currently by  
Gentoo
devs anyway, so it will not seriously reduce the amount of mail in  
total.


As far as the usually fast technical discussions are concerned, my  
problem
here is that users are in practical kept out of the discussion by the  
mere

delay of their mails. We might experience double replies, users writing
replies which get dumped -- because someone else already wrote the
same mail 30 minutes ago and it did not get approved until he wrote  
his mail.
If you ever spent 30 minutes figuring out a problem in Mac OS X and  
filing

a decent bug report on their bug tracker just to find out it gets DUPed,
but you could not know before because the search is not public, you know
what I am talking about.

My imagination of this would be:
Create the project list for open discussion and restrict the
*topic* range, not the *participant* range  of this list.
We can evaluate whether the SNR did improve enough after some time.

Regards,

Robert

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:24:32PM -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.

Any dev can moderate is an illusion.  Most non-dev messages are
perfectly reasonable ones and I'm pretty sure the smart devs know how
to handle filters when they get bored with the flamefests.  So either
the devs get a message when there is something to be moderated, and
it's going to annoy them to see all these messages twice, or they
don't, and I don't see anybody checking a web site or something on a
regular basis to see if there are messages to let go through.  At
least not long term.

  OG.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ryan Hill
Mike Doty wrote:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.
 
 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out 
 anyway)
 but that's a path to cross later.
 
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.

I heard a lot of good or interesting solutions for our ML problems but
this wasn't one of them.  Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing
list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes.
 Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev.  One shit at a time,
people.

If you want to make -dev dev-only then fine, but drop the moderation
gimmick.  People can post to -project or email privately and if a
developer thinks it's something everyone should see it they can simply
forward it.


-- 
dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed
 gentoo org  it could suck an ancient virus from the sea
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ned Ludd
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 02:17 +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:

 I have to second the voices that a lot of user mails are productive.  
 I did
 not do any stats, but I feel that most mails to -dev are currently by  
 Gentoo
 devs anyway, so it will not seriously reduce the amount of mail in  
 total.

FYI we do have stats..

http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-month.xml
http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-year.xml
http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/

-- 
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: Call for more photos on planet.g.o

2007-07-12 Thread Ryan Hill
Rémi Cardona wrote:
 People with funky pictures
 - dirtyepic

As a rule I don't put pictures of myself on publically accessible
websites.  That way no one knows that I'm really Wil Wheaton.

-- 
dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed
 gentoo org  it could suck an ancient virus from the sea
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Will Briggs
Mike Doty wrote:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.
 
 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out 
 anyway)
 but that's a path to cross later.
 
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.
 
 --taco

A few points

1) As a point of fact, here am I, a non-dev user, responding to an email
on the dev list.  Why?  Because it's an issue that affects me as a user.
   Users are part of the gentoo community (*cough* are the whole point
of the gentoo community *cough*) and at some point user-developer
interaction needs to have a level playing field forum.  gentoo-dev, in
practice, has provided this.

_However it is spun, any moderating of non-devs is a disenfranchisement_


2) what -dev frequently becomes - does this solve the problem?  Let me
suggest that flamewars and other negative things can and will appear
amongst the copious amount of dry tinder that exists within the ranks of
those who have an @g.o email address.

_These proposed changes won't solve the problem_


3) I read this list to keep my finger on the pulse of what's happening
in gentoo's heart.  Crucial to this is the significant contribution of
some non-dev's.  Included among these are former-developers, who while
they can't contribute in code or bug fixes etc, can in thought and
debate.  I'll also name up Duncan who here and on -amd64 often provides
thought-provoking (although *cough* lengthy) posts, and even Mr.
McCreesh who provides posts that while sometimes caustic/flammable, are
also often precise and, in the most positive sense of the word,
idealistic.  I wouldn't want these contributions to be delayed or
(perish the thought) vexatiously moderated.

_Contributions from non-devs are valuable_



4) gentoo-dev is what it is.  If you want a moderated list, create a
new, moderated list, where everyone member is subject to it and there
are clear understandings, from the get-go of who, by whom, and what will
be moderated.

_If you want to do this, do it properly_


W.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Daniel Ostrow
total-snip

One additional note, my proposal doesn't account for controlling
flaming, disrespect or general asshatery (discounting outright
ridiculous things like blatantly insulting people, that's a no-no). That
I am afraid is just one of the natures of communities our size. There is
no way we can curtail people from speaking their minds publicly, if you
ban someone from a list they will find somewhere else, equally as
public, to be an asshat...and now they have valid ammunition...granted
this somewhere else won't necessarily be visible to you (for any value
of you) so your panties might get less bunchy...but frankly any damage
will still be done...

The point is so that you can *ignore* it when it happens...trying to
stop it is an exercise in futility and will only make your hair gray and
your stress level increase...people will be assholes...that's just
people I'm afraid...

/total-snip


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Daniel Ostrow
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
 All-
 
 We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
 devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate 
 in
  bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
  there is no requirement to be on this new list.
 
 This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out 
 anyway)
 but that's a path to cross later.
 
 We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
 the time.

It is rare enough that I actually respond to something on -dev (or any
ml for that matter) so you know I have to care...

Personally, I rather dislike this proposal, mostly because I see it as a
bunch of unnecessary work...

I as a developer find it very difficult to cut though what I consider
noise to find the bits that I consider important to being able to
continue being an effective developer on a list that I am *required* to
be subscribed to. We have considered the likes of a moderated list, an
announce only list and now this sillyness to help in cutting down on
what a lot of us see as noise. How about we try something elsea self
moderated quasi-announce list...

1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this discussion
I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The requirement
for subscription for all devs would shift from gentoo-dev to
gentoo-dev-info.

2). All *new* threads should cross post (regardless of whether it is
from a dev or a user) to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-dev-info. Those that
don't cross post (either by ignorance or accident) can be forwarded by
someone to the missing list.

3). The reply-to header for gentoo-dev-info should be set to gentoo-dev.

4). No further e-mail will be sent to gentoo-dev-info on this new thread
until a resolution on what actions if any need to be undertaken.

5). If a thread topic is posted that interests you as a developer (or a
user for that matter), you can either a). sub to gentoo-dev to continue
discussion there, b). utilize any of the archives to follow the topic
and contribute without being subscribed or c) have already been
subscribed and only pay attention to this one thread sending the rest
to /dev/null (yay! procmail).

6) After the thread has petered out, if, and only if, any action is
being taken, be that a change in policy, a clarification of policy or an
actual change in behavior of some component, the dev or devs who are
going to take said action send a notice describing it as a follow up
notice to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-dev-info.

Using that model devs and any users that want to subscribe as well can
be aware of every new thread that gets started and choose to participate
or not. This also gives them a new list that should have almost no
noise, every thread will be at most two e-mails long, the initial e-mail
and the resolution (if any). If you don't care about a topic all you see
is that it was discussed and what the outcome of said discussion was, if
you do care, you involve yourself in the discussion at your pleasure.

We can trust people on their honor not to post to gentoo-dev-info in any
manner other then that described above. This way we avoid the whole
overhead of having to moderate the list, if people misbehave and post
additional crap to the list consider moderating that one user...but
honestly since there is a list *with the same thread* meant for
discussion already this should only happen out of ignorance of policy or
malicious action...the latter should be clearly identifiable and dealing
with it should be easy.

No need to change the status quo for dev, no need to privatize core,
just create one list, post the rules and off you go...

--Dan


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Kumba

Olivier Crête wrote:

On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:

We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who moderate in
 bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
 there is no requirement to be on this new list.


What are the proposed guidelines for the different between -project and
-dev? What goes where?


See Bug # 181368, where I initially proposed gentoo-project.


--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Kumba

Mike Doty wrote:

All-

We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.  devs who
moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.  in addition
the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently
becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list.

This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out
anyway) but that's a path to cross later.

We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be 
the time.



Hmm, given that I'm the one who planted the seed for -project, I have to wonder
if the seed has grown in a way that might be useful.  Or if it has merely become
a weed now, and should be pulled from the garden.

Here's what my thinking was when I put out the initial e-mail calling for 
-project, including thoughts now on how they should be laid out now:


- I envisioned three mailing lists, essentially:
* core
* dev
* project

- core: private, dev-only mailing list for internal discussion

* Possibility: becomes read-only to the public after
  a set time limit, possibly 1, 2, 4, or 6 months.
  Certain messages and threads could be marked (via
  some feature, for example) to remain permanently
  private, and thus would never be readable by the
  public.  This policy would NOT apply retroactively.


- dev:  open, dev and user mailing list for technical discussions about
the gentoo project.  Topics would include package
addition/removal/masking announcements, EAPI discussions,
package development questions/inquires (i.e., from users,
but NOT help -- gentoo-user exists for that).

* Possibility: Package changes, such as moves,
  deletions, additions, and so forth could also be
  routed automatically to a -dev-announce ML, possibly
  by prefixing the subject field with [ANNOUNCEMENT]:
  (This prefix, would of course, be stripped by the
  automatic mailer before posting to -dev-announce).

* Possibility: topics could also include developer
  recruitment and developer departure emails.  However,
  these may need to be sparse and impersonal (almost
  machine-like) where-in it may be announced who joined
  (First/Last name, developer name, IRC handle, etc..),
  herd they'll be joining, and duties they'll perform,
  including packages they may be maintaining.  These can
  also be routed to a -dev-announce ML.


- project: open, dev and user mailing list for non-technical discussions
   of the gentoo project.  Topics can include pretty much
   anything non-technical, including topics with high
   flammability content, but it would be advised that people
   maintain their composure and at least try to be respectful of
   other developer and user viewpoints.  One may not have to
   agree, but one should at least give respect.

* Possibility: Automated greeting e-mail sent to people
  who sign up to the list reminding them to conduct
  themselves accordingly.  Overall, the list should
  moderate itself, because most of us are adults after
  all.  Those who maintain a track record of NOT
  moderating themselves, could be forced off the list
  (after discussion/inquiry/vote) by some responsible
  party (which I won't attempt to detail any further as
  to whom this party should/should not be).



Moderation just doesn't sit very well with me.  One, it's got an overhead 
burden, and likely, most devs will ignore the queued messages.  Those with 
enough idle curiosity might take a peek at them, but by and large, I think this 
puts up barriers for some potential future great idea to come along and get 
quietly shuffled away into /dev/null.


Two, wayward devs and users who post the wrong message to the wrong list can be 
pointed in the right direction with a simple reminder that takes all of 2mins to 
compose.  I see it done all the time for the types that try emailing 
unsubscribe to an ML.  In the event they continue, then they can be blocked 
for a time.


Basically, moderation is a tool to me, a tool that should be used 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to
 license ebuilds as GPL-2?

The Gentoo Project requires contributors to surrender the copyright to
the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation sets the license (to GPL-2). I
(hopefully :) explained this in another reply to this thread.


Kind regards,
 JeR
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  third parties are free to license however they like.
 
 Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
 wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
 skel.ebuild?

Chris doesn't need to retract his claim, because his claim is very
likely false or at best immaterial. Finding out whether one work is a
derivative of another is much too expensive. It's easier to state a
copyright claim, in effect surrendering the copyright to the Gentoo
Foundation, and be done with it, and then let the Gentoo Foundation set
the license, in this case GPL-2. This happens to be exactly what the
header.txt file[0] in gentoo-x86 is for, but sadly there is no
documentation that explains this policy at all, it seems.

To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
copyright to the ebuild to the Gentoo Foundation, formerly Gentoo
Technologies, Inc. [1], the original commit of skel.build (later
skel.ebuild) already made this very clear:

# Copyright 1999-2000 Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or
later
# Author Your Name your email
# $Header$

I remember seeing a less subtle statement to this effect (that the
copyright to anything you submit to Gentoo's CVS is passed on to
the Gentoo Project) a long time ago, probably in the devrel/recruiters
documentation during my own recruitment. Right now I can only find
this:

  ===Headers===

When you submit your ebuilds, the header should be exactly the same as
the one in /usr/portage/header.txt. Most importantly, do not modify it
in anyway and make sure that the $Header: $ line is intact.[2]

Sadly, currently no document on www.gentoo.org explains the judicial
better than [3], which has this:

The bureaucracy we mention includes:

[...]

- juridical protection: backing up the licenses Gentoo uses,
  maintaining the copyrights on Gentoo's software, documentation and
  other assets and protecting Gentoo's intellectual property

and also:

In other words, the Gentoo Foundation will:

[...]

- protect the developed code, documentation, artwork and other
  material through copyright and licenses

I think this lack of clarity calls for some changes to at least the
policy documents. Ebuilds can probably not be considered proper
derivatives of skel.[e]build, but IANAL, I can only say that having a
court find this would be very expensive, whatever the outcome.


Therefore, the copyright to an ebuild is or should be actively and
simply turned over to the Gentoo Foundation by the developer, and this
should be made policy and should be explained properly in a few places
in our documentation.

Should I file a documentation bug about this?


Kind regards,
 JeR

[0] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/header.txt
[1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/skel.ebuild
[2]
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Kevin Lacquement

Kumba wrote:


- I envisioned three mailing lists, essentially:
* core
* dev
* project

- core:private, dev-only mailing list for internal discussion

* Possibility: becomes read-only to the public after
  a set time limit, possibly 1, 2, 4, or 6 months.
  Certain messages and threads could be marked (via
  some feature, for example) to remain permanently
  private, and thus would never be readable by the
  public.  This policy would NOT apply retroactively.


I'm not sure about stuff in -core becoming publicly accessible.  After 
all, isn't it in the private list for a reason?  Perhaps summaries of 
-core discussions being forwarded to -dev would be a better option. 
However, I'm new to -dev, so if this is what already happens I don't know.





- dev:open, dev and user mailing list for technical discussions 
about

the gentoo project.  Topics would include package
addition/removal/masking announcements, EAPI discussions,
package development questions/inquires (i.e., from users,
but NOT help -- gentoo-user exists for that).


Here's where we want the non-devs to get access.  After all, not all 
development and debugging is done by devs.  All the current devs were, 
at one point, users.  Where did they get their start?  My bet is they 
entered via the -dev mailing list, learned the ropes here, and 
eventually earned their dev status.  If the -dev list is closed, where 
do the new dev-wannabes learn the ropes and get their voices heard?




* Possibility: Package changes, such as moves,
  deletions, additions, and so forth could also be
  routed automatically to a -dev-announce ML, possibly
  by prefixing the subject field with [ANNOUNCEMENT]:
  (This prefix, would of course, be stripped by the
  automatic mailer before posting to -dev-announce).


Would it perhaps be better to send announcements to -dev-announce, and 
have that list forward to -dev?  That way we avoid issues if a subject 
starts with [ANNONUCEMENT], for example




* Possibility: topics could also include developer
  recruitment and developer departure emails.  However,
  these may need to be sparse and impersonal (almost
  machine-like) where-in it may be announced who joined
  (First/Last name, developer name, IRC handle, etc..),
  herd they'll be joining, and duties they'll perform,
  including packages they may be maintaining.  These can
  also be routed to a -dev-announce ML.


If these messages will be machine-like, why not have them 
machine-generated?  When you become a dev, someone (you?  the person 
that -dev-ifie's you?) fills out a form, and the information from the 
form is forwarded to the list.


[snip -project]



Basically, moderation is a tool to me, a tool that should be used 
sparingly. Not used as a blanket cover, with the occasional someone 
lifting up that blanket to peek outside (save that for the monster under 
the bed).  That said, however, I don't think we should totally dismiss 
the idea of blanket moderation.


Rather, I think we should first implement -project, put out enough 
information to get people to use it, and watch it for a few months.  By 
and large, we may discover that simply giving another list for the 
non-technical discussions may fix the problems on -dev, and moderation 
won't be needed on either list.  If, on the other hand, problems still 
arise on -dev that -project did not address (or may've been potentially 
created by -project's creation), then we can revisit the option of 
blanket moderation then.


I agree with this.  Also, it gives a transition time for people to get 
used to the new idea.  Don't create -project, then 3 months later say 
that didn't work, we need to moderate -dev.  Give it a little more 
time than that.  Ensure that people are reminded, especially at the 
beginning, that there may be a more appropriate forum.




Simply put: One Step At A Time.



Cheers,

--Kumba



My 2 non-dev cents,

Kevin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Kumba

Kevin Lacquement wrote:


I'm not sure about stuff in -core becoming publicly accessible.  After 
all, isn't it in the private list for a reason?  Perhaps summaries of 
-core discussions being forwarded to -dev would be a better option. 
However, I'm new to -dev, so if this is what already happens I don't know.



It's been a topic debated off and on on whether or not to keep -core locked away 
forever, but face it, even the CIA declassifies its dirty laundry every so 
often.  Now I'm not saying we should hold onto -core material for 30+ years, but 
I see no point in forever locking up the information on -core.  At minimum, it 
provides a historical look into how developers used to think.  Equally, this is 
why we need a sufficient time gap to let a majority of topics die off on -core 
before they become fodder for public consumption.  And why a marker being 
available to permanently lock certain threads/messages as needed.





Here's where we want the non-devs to get access.  After all, not all 
development and debugging is done by devs.  All the current devs were, 
at one point, users.  Where did they get their start?  My bet is they 
entered via the -dev mailing list, learned the ropes here, and 
eventually earned their dev status.  If the -dev list is closed, where 
do the new dev-wannabes learn the ropes and get their voices heard?


You missed the small mention of open in my first sentence.  I probably should 
have clarified what my definition of what open is, but it pretty much means no 
moderation on the -dev list so that users and developers could post.





Would it perhaps be better to send announcements to -dev-announce, and 
have that list forward to -dev?  That way we avoid issues if a subject 
starts with [ANNONUCEMENT], for example



-dev-announce is a list proposed by another developer, and it's got its own bug 
number someplace (don't have it on hand ATM, however).  And technically, you 
wouldn't be forwarding the -dev-announce messages to -dev, because -dev-announce 
is essentially acting as a filter to -dev.  -dev would, in theory, contain ALL 
technical discussion related to the project.  -dev-announce would contain all 
announcements of certain, specific, technical things occurring within the 
project (and already talked about on -dev).  As a result, someone posting to 
-dev and wishing that post to also be forwarded to -dev-announce would attach 
[ANNOUNCEMENT]: to their subject line.  Not all devs are gonna wanna get into 
discussions, even technical ones.  Thus they can still monitor -dev-announce to 
keep abreast of things.


This method is no different really from the art of prefixing [PATCH]: to the 
subject line of an email on a kernel development list (or development list for 
any other software project) to indicate that the contents of the email includes 
a patch.  Even for LKML and linux-mips, there are tools in git that can target 
emails marked at patches, and automatically perform various feats of magic on 
them (such as stuffing the patches into a git queue of sorts).


This is why I don't think we could expect many problems from an announcement 
message.  Presumably, an announcement message would not be put out unless it'd 
already been discussed.  History, however, shows us that this is not always the 
case.  Thus, if some kind of a discussion were to arise from some kind of 
announcement, it likely wouldn't get forwarded to -dev-announce anyways (since 
replying to a mail would read as Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT], and it wouldn't get 
picked up by the automated mailer).  Furthermore, the -dev-announce list can 
probbaly be locked to only accept inbound mail from a specific host or address, 
itself tied to a script or bot of some kind.  If someone accidentally sent a 
message to -dev-announce, they would get a bounce back of some kind.





If these messages will be machine-like, why not have them 
machine-generated?  When you become a dev, someone (you?  the person 
that -dev-ifie's you?) fills out a form, and the information from the 
form is forwarded to the list.


We could automate it possibly, pulling data from the LDAP system used to auth 
devs to a number of gentoo systems.  Or someone in devrel could just take a few 
seconds to fill out a few fields in an email template and hit send.  I said 
impersonal because my mind is thinking technical == dry, white-paper-like 
material.  Either method works. but it's just a suggestion.  The more personal, 
emotion-filled (and I don't mean negative emotion-filled either) ones could go 
elsewhere, like to -project or such.



Cheers,


--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Kevin Lacquement

Kumba wrote:



Here's where we want the non-devs to get access.  After all, not all 
development and debugging is done by devs.  All the current devs were, 
at one point, users.  Where did they get their start?  My bet is they 
entered via the -dev mailing list, learned the ropes here, and 
eventually earned their dev status.  If the -dev list is closed, where 
do the new dev-wannabes learn the ropes and get their voices heard?


You missed the small mention of open in my first sentence.  I probably 
should have clarified what my definition of what open is, but it 
pretty much means no moderation on the -dev list so that users and 
developers could post.




Sorry, I should have made it clear - I was agreeing with you there.  I'm 
not a -dev yet, but if I continue to have the time to work towards it, I 
don't want to be blocked because someone decided that users couldn't 
give insights to the developers list.


Kevin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
 snip

before people start responding with their opinions, take this to the trustees 
list.  that list is for all Gentoo licensing/copyright/blah-blah-boring-crap.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ryan Hill
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
 I as a developer find it very difficult to cut though what I consider
 noise to find the bits that I consider important to being able to
 continue being an effective developer on a list that I am *required* to
 be subscribed to. We have considered the likes of a moderated list, an
 announce only list and now this sillyness to help in cutting down on
 what a lot of us see as noise. How about we try something elsea self
 moderated quasi-announce list...

Now this idea I really like.  Some things have to be considered though,
the biggest one being how to ensure that the decisions and consensus of
the discussions on -dev actually make their way over to -dev-info.  Also
 how to handle sub-thread tangents and etc.  All in all, I think it's
worth thinking about.


-- 
dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed
 gentoo org  it could suck an ancient virus from the sea
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Marius Mauch
Add usual IANAL disclaimer here. All of what I say below is just a
recall of what I remember from discussions that happened a few years
ago.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:53:10 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
 copyright to the ebuild to the Gentoo Foundation, formerly Gentoo
 Technologies, Inc. [1], the original commit of skel.build (later
 skel.ebuild) already made this very clear:

Only if the ebuild actually includes our copyright header, and even then
is probably questionable in legal terms.

 I remember seeing a less subtle statement to this effect (that the
 copyright to anything you submit to Gentoo's CVS is passed on to
 the Gentoo Project) a long time ago, probably in the devrel/recruiters
 documentation during my own recruitment.

I think you're talking about the copyright assignment doc, which new
devs were required to sign for some time (back when drobbins was still
in charge) and send back to drobbins, but which was pulled because of
serious flaws. Ever since the copyright assignment issue has been
something the foundation/board of trustees should have take care of
(one of the reasons we needed the lawyers), with no result so far.

 Sadly, currently no document on www.gentoo.org explains the judicial
 better than [3], which has this:
 
 The bureaucracy we mention includes:
 
 [...]
 
 - juridical protection: backing up the licenses Gentoo uses,
   maintaining the copyrights on Gentoo's software, documentation
 and other assets and protecting Gentoo's intellectual property
 
 and also:
 
 In other words, the Gentoo Foundation will:
 
 [...]
 
 - protect the developed code, documentation, artwork and other
   material through copyright and licenses

Which isn't really related, as we can only protect what we own.

 Therefore, the copyright to an ebuild is or should be actively and
 simply turned over to the Gentoo Foundation by the developer, and this
 should be made policy and should be explained properly in a few places
 in our documentation.
 
 Should I file a documentation bug about this?

Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.

Marius

-- 
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Kumba

Kevin Lacquement wrote:


Sorry, I should have made it clear - I was agreeing with you there.  I'm 
not a -dev yet, but if I continue to have the time to work towards it, I 
don't want to be blocked because someone decided that users couldn't 
give insights to the developers list.


Ah ha, then yeah, some of our devs come from the list, and if it becomes more 
technical by shuffling non-technical discussions elsewhere (mostly), it might 
help to filter out good candidates for new devs.


Course, the mailing lists alone aren't the only source; I've picked up devs 
straight off IRC, and I know of others who came on board solely through bugzilla 
contributions.  So there are many alternatives.



Cheers,


--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
 (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
 foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.

I never realised this was controversial. In that case, Mr. Frysinger is
correct in stating this thread should probably be moved to this
exciting trustees list  he keeps mentioning. :)


Kind regards,
 JeR
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Harald van Dijk
 Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
 GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
 linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
 in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
 somewhat different but similar example, cdrtools.
 
 Not true:
 
 cdrecord and all-1 programs in cdrtrools are 100% CDDL.
 
 mkisofs is a GPL project that links to non-GPL libraries.
 This is something that is no problem with the GPLv2 as long as the
 libraries are not derived from or written for GPL code.
 
 As the libraries mkisofs links with are older than mkisofs or at 
 least written independently and usage neutral, there is no problem 
 even with binaray redistribution of mkisofs.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Neither the FSF nor you hold the copyright to mkisofs, but still, I'll
take the FSF's own interpretation over yours. If others believe you're
right, that's their choice.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Duncan
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on  Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:01:53 -0600:

  Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing
 list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes.
  Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev.  One shit at a time,
 people.

+1

It should also be noted that it's council election time, and I don't 
believe a change such as closing -dev to moderated write status is really 
urgent enough to have the outgoing council handle.  Let the folks running 
for council now make their positions part of their platforms, and after -
project is up and running for a couple months and the new council is in 
place, /then/ let's see if moderating -dev remains a burning enough issue 
to be voted on.

Otherwise, what happens if the new council sees things differently.  If 
they reverse course, it's going to cause reverberations.  If they are 
unhappy with things but decide to uphold the previous council, well that 
has its own problems.

Here's what I'd suggest.  Let the current council have its vote -- as a 
recommendation for the new council, not a binding/active decision.  Then 
the new council can come in and build on those preliminaries, taking into 
account further developments as -project comes into its own, as they see 
fit.

If the recommendation from the old council and the implementation of the 
new council both go the same way, it'll be a VERY strong decision.  If 
the new council sees things differently, at least with it being an issue 
during the nomination and vote, they'll be able to point to that and say 
we did as we were elected to do.  Either way, I believe it'll be a rather 
stronger decision than if the outgoing council acts on it as what amounts 
to lame ducks.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.  Richard Stallman

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 13 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
  (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
  foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.

 I never realised this was controversial. In that case, Mr. Frysinger is
 correct in stating this thread should probably be moved to this
 exciting trustees list  he keeps mentioning. :)

Mr. Frysinger is my dad, stoopid
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

2007-07-12 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:04:20AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
  Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
  GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
  linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
  in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
  somewhat different but similar example, cdrtools.
  
  Not true:
  
  cdrecord and all-1 programs in cdrtrools are 100% CDDL.
  
  mkisofs is a GPL project that links to non-GPL libraries.
  This is something that is no problem with the GPLv2 as long as the
  libraries are not derived from or written for GPL code.
  
  As the libraries mkisofs links with are older than mkisofs or at 
  least written independently and usage neutral, there is no problem 
  even with binaray redistribution of mkisofs.
 
 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
 
 Neither the FSF nor you hold the copyright to mkisofs, but still, I'll
 take the FSF's own interpretation over yours. If others believe you're
 right, that's their choice.

Besides, as I recall, the decision for cdrkit was based on a
disagreement over the build system license, not the license of
libraries. Sorry, that's what I should've said, and that's all I
should've said; the rest is not relevant here.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Duncan
Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Thu, 12
Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700:

 1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this discussion
 I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The requirement
 for subscription for all devs would shift from gentoo-dev to
 gentoo-dev-info.
 
 2). All *new* threads should cross post (regardless of whether it is
 from a dev or a user) to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-dev-info. Those that
 don't cross post (either by ignorance or accident) can be forwarded by
 someone to the missing list.
 
 3). The reply-to header for gentoo-dev-info should be set to gentoo-dev.
 
 4). No further e-mail will be sent to gentoo-dev-info on this new thread
 until a resolution on what actions if any need to be undertaken.

[snip]

I'd add one more.  On some of the long threads, someone has been kind 
enough to post a summary on occasion.  I'd suggest those summaries be 
posted to the dev-info (or whatever it becomes) list as well, with the 
same x-posting and reply-to rules as thread-starters.  I don't recall who 
it has been that has done such summaries, but I've found them useful, and 
others have remarked that they have as well.  I believe they'll be 
equally useful on the proposed low-noise -info list... with the caveat 
that the summaries be just that, not add any personal opinion beyond the 
summary, and /possibly/ that whoever this summarizer is, it be made an 
officially blessed position, so not just anyone could post a reply and 
call it a summary.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.  Richard Stallman

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list